February 17, 2019, 03:47:50 PM


Author Topic: Female only teaching positions  (Read 16908 times)

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2017, 05:54:41 AM »
Some people need to learn the definition of 'discriminate.'

'make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.'
Btw, discriminate also means (and originally meant) note/observe a difference between things; to distinguish between them correctly.

BTW 'means' in the plural form also signifies 'the average of the numbers: a calculated "central" value of a set of numbers' and 'note' can also mean 'a single tone of definite pitch made by a musical instrument or the human voice.'

Offline alonzo9772

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2017, 06:05:25 AM »
I am a male hagwon worker, and it personally does not bother me to see the "female only" job postings. Hagwons are private businesses. They are trying to go for a certain atmosphere.

I try not to go where I am not wanted. If managers are not interested in hiring a man, I would rather that they be upfront about it and let me know so that I am not wasting my time with applying to their schools.

With my hagwon, I am the only male worker. Even the janitor is female. That means, before I got hired, my manager must have used the "female only" job postings. It can't just be by coincidence that my hagwon  is female dominated.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2017, 06:39:24 AM »
I am a male hagwon worker, and it personally does not bother me to see the "female only" job postings. Hagwons are private businesses. They are trying to go for a certain atmosphere.

I try not to go where I am not wanted. If managers are not interested in hiring a man, I would rather that they be upfront about it and let me know so that I am not wasting my time with applying to their schools.

With my hagwon, I am the only male worker. Even the janitor is female. That means, before I got hired, my manager must have used the "female only" job postings. It can't just be by coincidence that my hagwon  is female dominated.

So do you think all private businesses should be able to specify gender, age, race etc in their job adverts in order to create their particular atmosphere?

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2017, 06:43:25 AM »
EG,

Do you think private businesses should be "forced" to hire those they do not wish to employ?

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2017, 09:39:36 AM »
EG,

Do you think private businesses should be "forced" to hire those they do not wish to employ?

It's a tough one. I'm all for individual freedom of choice but I'm not sure I want to live in a country where employers can openly advertise for Caucasians only. On the other hand I think men and women are different and generally speaking can be suited better for certain roles.  However that doesn't mean there aren't people of both genders who can be good at any job.

I can see how all this has led some Western countries to regulate against any form of discrimination in job adverts. Sure it doesn't mean the company can't discriminate anyway and it may lead to wasting people's time but I think overall it has probably led to a fairer environment.

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2017, 09:47:37 AM »
EG,

Do you think private businesses should be "forced" to hire those they do not wish to employ?

It's a tough one. I'm all for individual freedom of choice but I'm not sure I want to live in a country where employers can openly advertise for Caucasians only. On the other hand I think men and women are different and generally speaking can be suited better for certain roles.  However that doesn't mean there aren't people of both genders who can be good at any job.

I can see how all this has led some Western countries to regulate against any form of discrimination in job adverts. Sure it doesn't mean the company can't discriminate anyway and it may lead to wasting people's time but I think overall it has probably led to a fairer environment.
Agree to disagree with you on that front.

It is smoke and mirrors.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2017, 11:37:17 AM »
Quote
Agree to disagree with you on that front.

It is smoke and mirrors.

Have you been on an all Western hiring team compared to a Korean one for example? That'd be a good way to see where and how much discrimination plays a part. 

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2017, 12:43:56 PM »
I wouldn't call them hiring "teams", but I have been involved in both (ages ago).

Though my experience is limited, the process in Korea is not that much different with regard to nepotism and the like.  Obviously, Korea is legally permitted to be much more "honest" about the process.  In the US, the final decisions were based on who would be the "best fit" (most know what that means).

Sorry, but people are not being honest with themselves if they think Xs and Os are all that matter in the hiring process.

Code words, anyone?

Truth be told, we actively discriminate with regard to who we allow to be tenants in our properties.

Obviously, we have to follow the law, but it is easy to discard anyone we don't wish to lease to in the end.

Is that a surprise?

One doesn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on homes and then allow crackheads and criminals to occupy them.

Wake up.

Offline KimDuHan

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2017, 01:00:07 PM »
I wouldn't call them hiring "teams", but I have been involved in both (ages ago).

Though my experience is limited, the process in Korea is not that much different with regard to nepotism and the like.  Obviously, Korea is legally permitted to be much more "honest" about the process.  In the US, the final decisions were based on who would be the "best fit" (most know what that means).

Sorry, but people are not being honest with themselves if they think Xs and Os are all that matter in the hiring process.

Code words, anyone?

Truth be told, we actively discriminate with regard to who we allow to be tenants in our properties.

Obviously, we have to follow the law, but it is easy to discard anyone we don't wish to lease to in the end.

Is that a surprise?

One doesn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on homes and then allow crackheads and criminals to occupy them.

Wake up.

In Canada the renting laws are made for crackheads. If you rent out a house and the market isn't hot you can't really turn down any applicant. After 30 days the possible renters could file a discrimination suit against you if you turned them down and the house is still rentable.

Women only tenant ads have to be sub leases from other tenants too or else a suit could follow. Canada has lots of laws that discourage things that happen daily in Korea. 

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2017, 01:19:14 PM »
In the US, it is easy by requesting a drug test, if need be (they can refuse, as you can't require it), and then simply not offer the rental to those who refuse.

We use Cozy for:

National Criminal Search
County Criminal Search
Eviction History
Sex Offender Search
Terrorist Watchlist Search

There are people that we would NEVER rent to regardless of what any paper might say, but we would never openly admit to it.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2017, 01:25:43 PM »
I wouldn't call them hiring "teams", but I have been involved in both (ages ago).

Though my experience is limited, the process in Korea is not that much different with regard to nepotism and the like.  Obviously, Korea is legally permitted to be much more "honest" about the process.  In the US, the final decisions were based on who would be the "best fit" (most know what that means).

Sorry, but people are not being honest with themselves if they think Xs and Os are all that matter in the hiring process.

Code words, anyone?

Truth be told, we actively discriminate with regard to who we allow to be tenants in our properties.

Obviously, we have to follow the law, but it is easy to discard anyone we don't wish to lease to in the end.

Is that a surprise?

One doesn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on homes and then allow crackheads and criminals to occupy them.

Wake up.

Don't know why you keep moving the thread away from hiring practices to renting property, it's apples and oranges. Personally, I don't rent property out to people on benefits because statistically they're more likely to default. It's a simple business decision.

Quote
Though my experience is limited, the process in Korea is not that much different with regard to nepotism and the like.  Obviously, Korea is legally permitted to be much more "honest" about the process.  In the US, the final decisions were based on who would be the "best fit" (most know what that means).

You sound very cynical. I've been on a lot of Western hiring committees where everyone took time to think about who gave the best answers to the questions and race/gender/age were never considered. Conversely I've heard a lot of stories about Koreans discussing appearance at job interviews.

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2017, 01:36:05 PM »
race/gender/age were never considered.
Sorry, but I simply can't believe that to be true.

It is always considered.

How much, is debatable.

Quote
I've heard a lot of stories about Koreans discussing appearance at job interviews.
Right.  It's more than a little ridiculous.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2017, 04:57:50 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but I simply can't believe that to be true.

It is always considered.

How much, is debatable.

It may be considered but in my experience, not talked about. In a lot of UK companies these days you'd probably be reported to HR for bringing it up in a post interview discussion.

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2017, 05:10:07 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but I simply can't believe that to be true.

It is always considered.

How much, is debatable.

It may be considered but in my experience, not talked about. In a lot of UK companies these days you'd probably be reported to HR for bringing it up in a post interview discussion.
Of that, I have little doubt.

That said, are you denying that implicit bias/discrimination is not in play?  It is nuanced, but it certainly is alive and well, as is the "internalized" forms.

I prefer blatant forms of discrimination.

It just makes life much easier.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2017, 05:16:42 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but I simply can't believe that to be true.

It is always considered.

How much, is debatable.

It may be considered but in my experience, not talked about. In a lot of UK companies these days you'd probably be reported to HR for bringing it up in a post interview discussion.
Of that, I have little doubt.

That said, are you denying that implicit bias/discrimination is not in play?  It is nuanced, but it certainly is alive and well, as is the "internalized" forms.

I prefer blatant forms of discrimination.

It just makes life much easier.

So how exactly were you biased or discriminative in the last interview you took part in? I can assure you I wasn't but I guess you wouldn't believe me.

Offline Fanwarrior

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2017, 05:25:05 PM »
So lately a number of teaching positions have been adding female applicants only or female applicants preferred.

Seeing as a number of new teachers here are feminists and always say Korea is so sexist and unfriendly in general to women why is it that these job postings still exist? The people who take these jobs usually fit the sjw's persona.

How could any self respecting person (feminist) apply to a job that is sexist and unfair to men?

They exist because people would rather complain on these forums than do anything about it. They're illegal. The labour board has unequivocally stated as much. But they don't have the bodies to police job ads. If you want it to change, you need to start reporting them en masse.

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2017, 05:31:58 PM »
I wasn't "biased" per se, in the interview, but in the choice that was made, most definitely.

I considered their speech, their appearance, their mannerisms, their behavior/temperament, their word choice, etc. on top of the fundamentals and basic requirements.

That was the entire reason for the exercise, so as to find the "best" candidate for the position.

If you aren't going to discern and discriminate, why not simply take the first person that applies?

Asking a human being to not allow preference and past experience dictate their choice/actions is an exercise in futility.


Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2017, 05:33:19 PM »
So lately a number of teaching positions have been adding female applicants only or female applicants preferred.

Seeing as a number of new teachers here are feminists and always say Korea is so sexist and unfriendly in general to women why is it that these job postings still exist? The people who take these jobs usually fit the sjw's persona.

How could any self respecting person (feminist) apply to a job that is sexist and unfair to men?

They exist because people would rather complain on these forums than do anything about it. They're illegal. The labour board has unequivocally stated as much. But they don't have the bodies to police job ads. If you want it to change, you need to start reporting them en masse.
Nonsense.

Online eggieguffer

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2017, 07:08:51 PM »
I wasn't "biased" per se, in the interview, but in the choice that was made, most definitely.

I considered their speech, their appearance, their mannerisms, their behavior/temperament, their word choice, etc. on top of the fundamentals and basic requirements.

That was the entire reason for the exercise, so as to find the "best" candidate for the position.

If you aren't going to discern and discriminate, why not simply take the first person that applies?

Asking a human being to not allow preference and past experience dictate their choice/actions is an exercise in futility.

The interviews I attended had tick boxes and other paper work that had to be filled in to justify the choice. There was no point in letting personal bias get in the way, as if the person who was hired turned out to be a dead loss, management were inclined to look back over the interview process to find out why he/she was hired. 

Offline Pecan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3769
  • Gender: Male
Re: Female only teaching positions
« Reply #59 on: February 14, 2017, 07:16:05 PM »
I wasn't "biased" per se, in the interview, but in the choice that was made, most definitely.

I considered their speech, their appearance, their mannerisms, their behavior/temperament, their word choice, etc. on top of the fundamentals and basic requirements.

That was the entire reason for the exercise, so as to find the "best" candidate for the position.

If you aren't going to discern and discriminate, why not simply take the first person that applies?

Asking a human being to not allow preference and past experience dictate their choice/actions is an exercise in futility.

The interviews I attended had tick boxes and other paper work that had to be filled in to justify the choice. There was no point in letting personal bias get in the way, as if the person who was hired turned out to be a dead loss, management were inclined to look back over the interview process to find out why he/she was hired.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense...

You have to tick a box?

Are you saying that the process is void of subjectivity?

If so, every individual on your "team" should have the same boxes ticked.

If not, then you are helping to make my point, in that each individual is going to construct a different answer based on the lens they bring to the process.